Putting Wind Turbines Out of Wildlife's Way

A wonderful and unique lifestyle awaits you. Please see Sant Ritz project details and floor plans for more information.
Sant Ritz Site Plan

The negative effects to birds and bats by the mass reintroduction of wind energy production to the United States was unforeseen by both industry and governments. In the hype and hysteria of global warming and climate change I think a lot of rash decisions were made without the proper amount of study, and that is not a good path to follow regardless of the reason. Unfortunately this has hurt a lot of different parties, from taxpayers all the way down to bats.

I think we may want to move away from wind energy and find a more reliable, safe way to produce the power we need.

A little late for some places. The Allegheny Front that I look across at is covered with them. This is the major migration route for golden eagles. Wind companies raced in before studies were finished. That seems to be the way these companies operate. Habitat fragmentation is a major problem with these wind farms. Since, in the face of climate change, animals and plants need to move, they won't be able to if we cover the Appalachians with wind farms, unless they want to put them where the coal companies have been removing mountaintops. If National Auduon cares about birds and other critters, they need to be more outspoken about the damage wind farms do in the wrong places. As a long time member of Audubon--more than 40 years--I hope you will defend these places. Get behind the American Bird Conservancy and the USFW and speak up loudly. As members, we try to, but frankly, we in Pennsylvania are overwhelmed with industrial wind farms and Marcellus shale gas drilling and we also feel for our West Virginia neighbors also battling mountaintop removal. Are we in the Appalachians to be a sacrifice zone forever?

Wind energy is not new. American farms had wind energy in the early 20th century, before rural electrification made them obsolete. They became obsolete because the wind does not always blow, so the power output was unreliable. This has not changed. Wind is one of the most expensive and inefficient energy sources. It is good that Audubon has recognized the adverse environmental effects of wind power, but those adverse effects are not limited to the killing of bats and birds. Ask those human beings who found their quiet place in the country, only to have noisy wind turbines built nearby. There are many reasons why wind energy is not the answer to America's energy needs. For more, see http://www.jvas.org/pdf_files/Wind_Energy_Not_Answer.pdf .

Notice the article is all about what local chapters are doing, but that isn't enough. We need help from national Audubon to stop the proliferation of industrial wind turbines on forested ridges that are important migratory pathways and critical habitats. Why isn't national Audubon stepping up like the American Bird Conservancy and demanding USFWS bird-smart regulations?

In response to the "Actually, it is the fossil": Supporting industrial wind turbines actually supports the fossil fuel industry. Subsidies that are propping up wind energy should be spent on cleaning up the coal power plants. Subsidies that are wasted on industrial wind should be spent on research and development for rooftop solar - or for other technologies that will replace coal with clean, renewable energy that really works. Industrial wind doesn't work when the wind isn't blowing and wind doesn't work because it is backed by baseload power from coal and nuclear.

Per energy production, wind and solar are the most heavily subsidized.